Popular Vote vs Electoral College: Trump Won The Country, While Clinton Won The Major Cities

This graphic of the final results of the 2016 election should help some of you to understand why the Electoral College exists.

Clearly this was a devastating landslide for Trump across the board... yet Clinton supposedly won the popular vote.

That's because if the US elections were decided solely by popular vote, major cities like NY, LA, Chicago, and Seattle would decide every Presidential
race. If this was the case, the states would not have equal representation and would have most likely never joined the union or seceded a long time
ago, and we wouldn't have a country.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some
states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this
election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual states.

I would never support an election determined by popular vote, but I do feel the states should change how they allocate their electoral votes. Some
states split them according to the peoples votes and I think that is better than all in ways that most states do. I don't think that would change this
election in any way. It is just something I think would improve the current system, but the way they do it is left up to the individual
states.

Congressional District Vote.

The winner of the popular vote for each district gets that 1 single vote, then the winner of the state popular vote gets the 2 remaining 'senatorial'
votes. Nebraska and Maine do it that way.

I would like to see that nationally, but only if *every* state did it that way. Safe to say that California and New York won't ever allow
it.

Thanks, decent map, though I don't believe it's fully accurate for Wash. State(looks like some of the red counties were counted as blue on the coast).
I hope that explains the ones who are confused about the entire West Coast only being Dem/Lib voters, that it is in fact not, especially farther
north.

My question would be, was it always intended to be all or nothing regarding electors for a whole state?

Not always. Each state is allowed to distribute them as they see fit, based on internal voting and legislature.

There was a movement called the "National Popular Vote" that was trying to make it so every state that signed on to their charter would begin to
apportion their EV's to the winner of the popular vote, but only once the number of states that agreed to that reached or exceeded 270 electoral
votes.

I haven't heard about them in the last year or so. I wonder if they realized it is illegal for the states to enter into such a treaty with each other
without the consent of the Federal Congress.

The electoral college exists so that the votes of people who don't have neighbors count more?

No. It's because farmers and lower-class/poor people in isolated towns have a beautiful, valuable voice to add. And we want to make those areas are
INHABITABLE & LIVABLE, too? Eh?

Those people give voices to the causes that are close to their hearts and pocketbooks. Isolated as they may be...their state's voice matters.

Or maybe you just want everyone in massively overpopulated areas and dependent on a more socialist system to have the loudest voice, because that's
the area that's given the most consideration in a popular vote system.

If there were to be any change in the electoral vote, that's the one I'd support. It would certainly give political minorities in many states much
more reason to actually bother voting in presidential elections. Unfortunately, you're right, though. It'll never happen because states like
California and New York will never accept it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.